Doe wat je niet laten kan: A usage-based analysis of Dutch causative constructions. Natalia Levshina

Transcription

1 Doe wat je niet laten kan: A usage-based analysis of Dutch causative constructions Natalia Levshina RU Quantitative Lexicology and Variational Linguistics Faculteit Letteren Subfaculteit Taalkunde K.U.Leuven

2 Outline The object of the study Theoretical and methodological goals Data and methods Results Conclusions

3 Dutch causative constructions Haar stem deed het glas barsten. her voice made the glass break

4 Dutch causative constructions Haar stem deed het glas barsten. her voice made the glass break Harry liet het glas barsten. Harry made the glass break

5 Dutch causative constructions Haar stem deed het glas barsten. her voice made the glass break Harry liet het glas barsten. Harry made the glass break Causer

6 Dutch causative constructions Haar stem deed het glas barsten. her voice made the glass break Harry liet het glas barsten. Harry made the glass break Auxiliary

7 Dutch causative constructions Haar stem deed het glas barsten. her voice made the glass break Harry liet het glas barsten. Harry made the glass break Causee

8 Dutch causative constructions Haar stem deed het glas barsten. her voice made the glass break Harry liet het glas barsten. Harry made the glass break Effected Predicate

9 Previous research (1) Conceptual differences between the Cxs (Kemmer & Verhagen 1994; Verhagen & Kemmer 1997; Degand 2001; Stukker 2005) doen laten direct causation there is no intervening energy source 'downstream' from the initiator: if the energy is put in, the effect is the inevitable result (V&K 1997) indirect causation some other force besides the initiator is the most immediate source of energy in the effected event (V&K 1997)

10 Conceptual difference Haar stem deed het glas barsten. her voice made the glass break directly: sound resonance Harry liet het glas barsten. Harry made the glass break indirectly: the power of his magic wand

11 Previous research (2) Lexical fixation (Speelman & Geeraerts 2009) doen is more collocationally bound than laten Lectal variation (Speelman & Geeraerts 2009) doen is more frequently used in Belgian Dutch and in formal communication: an obsolescent form with a tendency towards lexical and semantic specialization Historical change (Duinhoven 1994; Verhagen 1994) doen has lost some usage schemata (e.g. interpersonal authoritative causation) with time

12 Outline The object of the study Theoretical and methodological goals Data and methods Results Conclusions

13 Towards a Hybrid Semantics 'Analogue' Semantics (CogLing) 'Digital' Semantics (CorpLing, CompLing) Perspective mostly polysemy gram. 'alternations' and lexical relationships Context maximally contextualized, no distinction between concepts and use minimally contextualized, contextual variation kept separate Methods introspective, interpretative formal, computational

14 why not combine the best of both worlds? (digital semantics with 'warm vinyl sound')

15 Aims PERSPECTIVE: combine the semasiological and onomasiological perspectives on doen and laten i.e. internal structure and distinctive features (cf. Geeraerts et al. 1994; Stukker 2005; Glynn 2007) CONTEXT: explore if there is geographic and register variation in the semantics of the constructions METHOD: develop a quantitative approach that would allow for an intuitive representation and qualitative interpretation of meaning

16 Outline The object of the study Theoretical and methodological goals Data and method Results Conclusions

17 Corpus data Register \ Country The Netherlands Flanders Spontaneous face-to-face conversations CGN (a) CGN (a) Newspapers (politics, economy, football, music) Postings in online discussion groups (politics, economy, football, music) TwNC Usenet.nl LeNC Usenet.be (in Dutch) Total: 5672 instances of doen and laten

18 Variables Causer, Causee, Affectee: sem. class, person, number, definiteness, POS, synt. expression Effected Predicate: transitivity, prepositional complements, semantic class of the caused event, lemma Coreferentiality and possession relations btw. the participants Causee only: intentionality, semantic role Negation, adverbial modifiers Mood, tense, type of the clause and sentence Total: 35 categorical variables

19 Analytical Procedure Data frame with observations (rows) and variables (columns)

20 Analytical Procedure Data frame with observations (rows) and variables (columns) Matrix of distances between the observations based on Gower's distance metric

21 Analytical Procedure Data frame with observations (rows) and variables (columns) Matrix of distances between the observations based on Gower's distance metric Multivariate analyses (MDS, hclust) to explore the semantic structure

22 Analytical Procedure Data frame with observations (rows) and variables (columns) Matrix of distances between the observations based on Gower's distance metric Multivariate analyses (MDS, hclust) to explore the semantic structure Confirmatory analyses (mixed GLM, random forests, etc.)

23 'Digital' Operationalization of 'analogue' semantics MDS dimensions = dimensions of semantic variation clusters of exemplars = 'senses'/usage patterns density of specific senses/usage patterns = entrenchment discontinuities = autonomy of specific senses/usage patterns etc.

24 Outline The object of the study Theoretical and methodological goals Data and method Results - semasiology meets onomasiology - lectal variation: is it done with doen? Conclusions

25 Semasiology: Semantics of doen

26 doen: dimensions volitional Causees non-volitional Causees mental caused events non-mental caused events

27 Semasiology: summary the main dimensions of doen and laten are identical: the semantic domain of the caused event, volitionality (agentivity, autonomy) of the Causee, i.e. direct indirect causation directness/indirectness of causation is a matter of degree no outspoken central sense in either construction no discrete senses, although relatively autonomous regions correspond to highly frequent doen denken aan and laten weten/zien... etc. (cf. Bybee 2010) the data challenge traditional radial network models used in Analogue Semantics

28 Onomasiology: doen vs. laten

29 Onomasiology: Summary the main distinction between doen and laten is that of directness and indirectness of causation (vertical dimension) there is also some evidence of mental caused events preferring doen (horizontal dimension) clear exemplar effects for doen denken aan and other lexically specific collocations (also in a mixed effect model) the most distinctive exemplars are not the most central (prototypical), especially for laten the results challenge the all-covering notion of 'The Prototype' used by some linguists

30 Outline The object of the study Theoretical and methodological goals Data and method Results - semasiology meets onomasiology - lectal variation: is it done with doen? Conclusions

31 doen: Quantitative differences Frequency of causative doen, per million words Belgium Netherlands Newspapers Usenet Spoken dialogues

32 doen: Belgian newspapers

33 doen: Belgian Usenet

34 doen: Belgian conversations

35 doen: Netherlandic newspapers

36 doen: Netherlandic Usenet

37 doen: Netherlandic conversations

38 Lectal variation: Summary doen is quantitatively and qualitatively (doen denken aan) more restricted in the Netherlandic and informal lects (cf. S&G 2009) laten exhibits less quantitative variation, although the frequency of laten zien and laten weten is surprisingly high in the Netherlandic variety, especially in the newspapers for both doen and laten, the Netherlandic variety has higher frequencies of specific lexical collocations with a high degree of autonomy these lexicalization processes have especially dramatic consequences for doen, which may be on its way to becoming a bound morpheme

39 Outline The object of the study Theoretical and methodological goals Data and methods Results Conclusions

40 Conclusions METHOD: the method allows for the quantitative operationalization of the main descriptive notions of semantics; one can model Gestalt-like concepts and senses with the help of individual observable features PERSPECTIVE: the results demonstrate complementarity of the semasiological and onomasiological perspectives. The centrality (prototypicality) and distinctiveness (cue validity) are not equal, especially for the semantically broader laten CONTEXT: the analysis of lectal variation shows that the most outspoken differences are related to the higher frequency of the lexicalized semi-autonomous constructions in the NL lects, which might suggest an ongoing fragmentation of the categories.

41 Future research experimental support of the corpus-based operationalizations of semantic phenomena main dimensions of variation: universal or construction-specific? a detailed lectally specific protocol of the historical changes in the semantic space of doen and laten

42 Thank you!